In a report released this week titled "Combating Tobacco in Military and Veteran Populations", the Institute of Medicine strongly recommended to the Department of Defense (DoD) to curb smoking by veterans and active duty personnel and to go as far as ban it all together.  The recommendation points to the rise in health care costs associated with smoking related disease and details how those who have served in the armed forces are 10% more likely to use tobacco products than the average 1 out of every 5 American who smokes.

As the report notes, the DoD already spends $1.6 billion per year on tobacco related care.  Couple the steadily more expensive health care costs, and "personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may be 50 percent higher [for using tobacco] than rates among non-deployed military personnel", you can see the writing on the wall for a budget crisis looming for the DoD.

This story caught the eye of Reason and Liberty becuase I wanted to pose the question, if the DoD were to ban smoking on bases,  would that be a infringing on a soldiers right to use tobacco, or is it simply a way of protecting the investment the United States Government made in training, and deploying their property in the best fighting shape it can?

(Source: Combating Tobacco in Military and Veteran Populations)

Yesterday (July 9th, 2009),  Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Donald L. Kohn, sat down with the Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, Committee on Financial Services, to discuss why the Federal Reserve needs to remain independent.  Ranking member Ron Paul, along with Chairman Watt and other members of the subcommitee were presented with tesimony provided by Chairman Kohn on why it is esential for the health of the economy to maintain and potentially remove some accountability of the Federal Reserve.

Kohn notes that "A well-designed framework for monetary policy includes a careful balance between independence and accountability." with "appropriate checks and balances within our government".  The case Kohn presents is one which paints the Federal Reserve as a strong defender of sound policy which requires indenpendance in order to protect and watch over the American economy.  Ironicaly making the claim that "political interference with monetary policy can damage the economy by promoting an undue focus on the short term."  Which we can only infer from that statement that the current operations of the Federal Reserve has not put a focus on the short term...

However Chairman Kohn fails to explain how artificially setting interest rates by the Federal Reserve has indeed accompliahed exactly what he claims would be the result of additional auditing.  The Internet and Real Estate Bubbles, which are the latest example of the policy of artifically lowered interest rates, has set the tone for the past 10 years of short term gain without long term vision.  Artifically lowered interest rates have lured investors into markets that did not deserve the level of investment they recieved, creating bubbles, which has caused more damage to investor confidence than any short term gain artifical rates could repair.

The Irony of Kohn's testimony is that he actually makes the case that the Fed understands the need of the public to know what they do behind closed doors, while defending their need for privacy and independence.  Kohn continues with "Americans have a right to know how the Federal Reserve is using taxpayer resources and they need to be assured that we are acting in a responsible manner that minimizes risk and maintains the integrity of our operations".  Which only prompts the question, how have they performed their "responsibility" of minimizing risk and integrity over the past, let's say 2 years?

To send Chairman Kohn's message home with policy makers, he ends his testimony with, the "Federal Reserve policymakers are highly accountable and answerable to the government of the United States and to the American people."  Of course that applies until they are asked to actually answer to the people, Bankers Privalge says hello Chairman Kohn.

( Source: Vice Chairman Donald L. Kohn - Federal Reserve Independence )

Today the Adminstration delivered to capitol hill it's vision for the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, a regulatory commitee with a primary focus to overseeing the financial market place and regulate "fair" practices for consumers.  In light of the massive financial crisis we are currently enduring, more regulation is rarely the answer to any national emergancy.

At the heart lacks some telling details that continue to put the focus on mortgage brokers rather than the source of cheap money that suckered so many people into bad loans.  When the Federal Reserve artificialy lowers interest rates, banks are able to pass that surplus of cheap money down to the consumers, which is typically a good thing until you run out of applicable borrowers.  All the cheap money in the world is worthless if you have no one to lend it to when your entire business is based on lending.  So standards were lowered, in an ever tightening race to loan cheap money as fast as they could.

What is the reason for more regulation, yet another layer of government to protect us.  Were we not already under the impression that the federal government was monitoring financial instutitions for these kind of practices?  Were we not already assuming the numerous amounts of regulators and agencies were watching these companies? 

Here we are again, at the height of a crisis, one that our already empowered government has the power to see and stop, and we are asking for more government to protect us from failed government programs designed to prevent exactly this.

Liberty has it's costs, and I feel this financial crisis was mostly due to a lack of responsibility nation wide for everyones own actions.  No one was putting guns to heads to buy houses, we all made a choice to have our own American Dream.

An Important aspect to liberty, is to break the chain of collectivism.  When we lump groups of people into stereotypical groups, we rob each individual of their own merrit.  Judging a group of people based on race, religion, geography, or any other attribute only stands to devalue what each of those people individualy account for, as well as elevate those who are even worse than the group label.

I found this little nugget of information from an odd source, ( Pakistan Daily )

"According to a Texas fusion center's "Prevention Awareness Bulletin"produced on Feb. 19, 2009, it is "imperative"that law enforcement officers report the activities of lobbying groups, Muslim civil rights organizations and anti-war protest groups in their areas.

A Missouri report says that law enforcement officers may be able to spot potential terrorists by their political bumper stickers, such as those for US Rep. Ron Paul, or by their subversive literature. A 200-page Virginia fusion center report notes that terrorists are likely to use Twitter, podcasts and social networking sites as communication tools."

The bolded part is what prompted me to write about it.  First let me say, I can not find this Missouri report, and a quick scan of google searches only returns the same article over and over again.

Whether true or not, we all do this.  When we are driving down the road behind a car with an Obama sticker on the bumber, we expect some green energy, welfare state, democrat to be driving is, same with those who support Gov. Palin, and other hardline republicans.

I admit, I am guilty of doing this as well, but now I feel that I may be considered a terrorist, it only drives home the point of just how bad collectivism can be.  I support Ron Paul becuase I love liberty, and freedom, not becuase I want to tear down "the system".

Keep in mind this, everytime you can judge someone for something other than their individual actions, and merrit, it can be thrown right back at you.

The Pope in an interview reported by Reuters said today, "there is urgent need of a true world political authority" ... "to manage the global economy".  Why the pope would even care to be involved in such matters of Finance? Adding yet another layer to government, further removing choice, and free market principles from the free market, will do nothing but perpetuate the continual boom and bust cycle we have seen for the past 100 years.

The Federal Reserve bank, for all we Americans are concerned, is our "World Political Authority" for the economy, and what disasters has that avoided for us?  As we continue to add in NATOs, and WTOs, and other Global Initiatives, who do we turn to when those do not succeed?  The answer is simple.  Less government and more self reliance to make better informed decisions, end the reliance off false authority to decide, what is a good investment and what is not.  

The higher we take decision making, the less available it is for us to make decisions that will best lead us to our individual goals. 

I can't blame the Pope for his answer, as the entire Papal organization is as anti-Liberty as there is.  Perhaps someone should educate him that a higher power is not the answer... well... atleast not on the economic issues of recent.